McGinniss's sleaziness has been well understood. Let's focus on Random House, the venerable publishing house.

In the email [at the link], McGinniss reveals that his manuscript, then under legal review at Crown/Random House, could not prove its most headline-grabbing allegations. And yet, many of these “salacious stories” that lacked “proof” (in McGinniss’s own words) ended up in the book, and on televisions everywhere during the author’s current media tour … without proper sourcing, and without any apparent new evidence to support them.

It's hard for a public figure to sue for defamation in the United States, but this email may be the proof of reckless disregard for the truth that Sarah/Todd/Bristol Palin would need.

That doesn't mean they should sue. It would boost the profile of McGinniss and his book and shine a spotlight on his various allegations.

"The Palins are pretty tough fighters, and I don't know that bringing these more to light could bring any more damage then has already been done."

Well, they know the extent to which the allegations are anywhere near the truth. They need to assess the whole situation. They can pick the statements that they know are absolutely false and run with those.

As a public figure it is (to say the least) difficult to win and as a GOP candidate, kinda tough to argue tort reform if you are engaged in tort litigation. McGinniss needs to self implode and Random House needs to be seriously embarassed. And the book needs to die.

A lawsuit would boost sales. Because then people would want to see what the fuss was about. Mocking it and discrediting it ensures the book ends up in the $1 bin by Christmas.

Can a class sue for slander/libel/alienation of affections? I mean, if Palins choose not to sue, someone should be able to get some extra income from these dolts, right? I, for one, feel really harmed by this and may lose some sleep and fail to respond adequately to my wife's loving embraces...

"The Palins are pretty tough fighters, and I don't know that bringing these more to light could bring any more damage then has already been done."

Well, they know the extent to which the allegations are anywhere near the truth. They need to assess the whole situation. They can pick the statements that they know are absolutely false and run with those.

One of the problems might be money. Miss Sarah resigned the Governorship because fighting the frivolous lawsuits was bleeding the family white.

I know the book did well and she has the gig with Fox, but do they have the money (and, doubtless, McGiniss is counting on the fact they don't) for a long court fight?

In the first wave, the MSM reviews said that the allegations in the book were malicious and sensational. But they were not reported as specious and fabricated. A lot of it, via late night comedians, Trudeau, etc., has seeped into the public consciousness as the truth. Palin has definitely been defamed.

It's like watching the European EURO fail. Did you know that 20 years ago it was PREDICTED?

Do you know how the political crooks did it? You can't claim "ignorance of the masses." Because the masses were promised wealth without having to work for it. And, it translated into nearly every country's language.

Except Margaret Thatcher's. She fought to keep the Pound Sterling. And, her reward was to be tossed out of leadership by own team. And, the BBC went to town to make fun of her. "And, all the other loonies." Where they pointed to fiscal conservatives.

So, no. I'm not surprised there were "teammates" of Joe McGuinness who were hoping he'd write a blockbuster.

Well, they know the extent to which the allegations are anywhere near the truth. They need to assess the whole situation. They can pick the statements that they know are absolutely false and run with those.

Good point. Of course, I'm approaching it with the assumption that it's all entirely false until I see something that credibly suggests otherwise.

I know the book did well and she has the gig with Fox, but do they have the money (and, doubtless, McGiniss is counting on the fact they don't) for a long court fight?"

Assuming that her case is anywhere near as strong as it looks, I'm sure that there are hundreds of lawyers who would do it not just for the contingency fees, but for the publicity alone. I'd do it in a heartbeat.

I wouldn't sue for another reason. The New York Times v Sullivan standard for a public figure is so steep that there's a very real likelihood that she would lose. And if she sues and loses, it only makes it worse.

There was a Soviet operative who planted a story that Cardinal Spellman and J. Edgar Hoover attended some kind of gay party and that Hoover wore a tutu at the party. The operative said that he made up the story in a tongue in cheek way, but the story has been endlessly repeated and has common currency......The credulity of liberals is surpassed only by their malice towards their ideological enemies.

"That doesn't meant they should sue. It would boost the profile of McGinniss and his book and shine a spotlight on his various allegations."

No, that doesn't "mean[] they should sue." They should sue because it's the right thing to do, for themselves and others; that simply enables them to do so despite the lamentable state of doctrine at this time. Misbehavior will continue until costs are attached to it. Depriving the author of a significant chunk of cash (and ideally donating it to a charity of which he would disapprove), and making him radioactive to other publishers, serves both justice and deterrence. Lyssalovelyredhead, edutcher, and AllenS are right.

So, to those who imagine "Sarah Palin should sue" ... She'd walk into court LAUGHING HER HEAD OFF!

No damage, would say the judge.

Sarah knows this.

She knew it as soon as Todd Palin and his friends built that wall! It was TEN FEET HIGH! The wood coloring didn't match. I think the separator-fence at the bottom was red. And, he built the taller part GREY!

Do you know ... if Sarah Palin runs for the presidency ... WHEN the subject of "FENCE" comes up ... She can do her "twinkle in the eye," and say "she'd leave the building of the fence to Todd and his friends."

You know, when I saw that fence I marveled at Todd's handiwork! He built a beautiful fence. He and his friends handled the height. They measured everything accurately. And, it was put in to look like it really belonged up there!

And, he seems to always be the thin guy. Reminds me (as an old timer) of Sammy Davis, Jr. Thin black guy who could dance like Fred Astaire.

For all the years Sammy Davis, Jr., came out on TV, he was surrounded by white guys. (Sometimes Frank Sinatra. Sometimes Peter Lawford. And, sometimes just the cast of Laugh In.) You always knew what you were going to get.

Same here.

The GOP still has not produced a condendah to take on Obama. And, for some strange reason ... perhaps because she has refused to say she'll run. She hasn't been invited up to the MEAT MARKET.

You want to call them debates? Be my guest.

When I was single I called stuff "dating" ... but it sure as hell felt like the meat market!

And, the GOP contestants don't even dance. Either alone. Or with each other. Or members of the audience. What kinds of crappy shows are those?

While Europe's currency is flushing down the toilet ... the idiot contendahs for the GOP nomination even refuse to say out loud ... "THEY'D CALL DA PLUMBERS IN BY NOW."

Someone made a good point. They compare this to Dan Rather and the fruadulent Texas Air Guard docs. The lie didn't need to be prosecuted as it destoryed the liar without any legal action. Same with this book. The author will be thought of as a weird tabloid writer.

No matter if you disagree with her politics, but the hostility displayed toward her, the downright stalking and publishing these lies just proves how disgusting and contemptible contempoary liberalism has become.

You seldom have written evidence of an author writing unprovable allegations. This is a very rare situation.

But, yes, she should sue Random House for distributing it. McGinniss is already known to be a poster child for abortion. When a murderer like Jeff McDonald can win a suit against you, you're a truly horrible person.

This explains everything. Since I, as is true for everyone else, get charged per use of the ENTER button, writing like Carol Herman would drive my blogging costs through the roof. The only way a "normal" person could afford it is if they, in fact, owned the internet.

Try reading AA's post all the way through, then try reading through some of the comments above for some ideas why not suing, despite having a good case (for argument's sake), is the better course for her to take.

Now that the cat is out of the bag Random House is unlikely to publish this "blend of fact and fiction" in the UK, a market that usually eats this stuff for breakfast.

Libel suits are notoriously hard cases to win, especially if the plaintiff is a public figure, whatever that means. Consequently the game is couch your lies as the the "testimony of anonymous but reliable sources" and other such weasel words. With a skillful lawyer at his elbow a sleaze merchant like Joe McGinnes can skate as close to the edge of outright lies as he wants.

However, in Britain the libel laws are written as to make lying in print a dangerous undertaking. The law is fair to everyone, regardless of status. Not only that in UK courts the loser pays the winner's legal fees and costs.

However, in Britain the libel laws are written as to make lying in print a dangerous undertaking. The law is fair to everyone, regardless of status. Not only that in UK courts the loser pays the winner's legal fees and costs.

However, in Britain the libel laws are written as to make lying in print a dangerous undertaking. The law is fair to everyone, regardless of status. Not only that in UK courts the loser pays the winner's legal fees and costs.

The libel laws in Britain are much stricter than ours.

They do not, however, necessarily deter lying in print, and they certainly don't prevent sleazy publications (such as the News of the World) from enjoying big sales and long lifetimes.

Nor are they fair to everyone. The threat of meritless libel suits is widely used in Britain (and the Commonwealth countries that still follow British law on these issues) by people with deep pockets to bully those without deep pockets into submission.

In recent years, Britain has become rather infamous for "forum shopping" libel suits. Some gangster in Ukraine will file suit for libel in Britain, against some Italian magazine that called him a gangster.

When people have been slimed (as Sarah Palin has been) or merely feel they have been slimed, they want revenge. They have visions of bankrupting and destroying their enemies.

But providing scope for pure revenge plays, while it may assure more income to lawyers, doesn't make for very good law.

Random House has published some good books over the years. It's co-founder, Bennett Cerf, fought and won the right to publish Ulysses in the US. There's a movie out there about Cerf called Infamous (2006) which I now want to see.

Plus, it's always interesting speculate on how a company's (and a country's) dead founders would view modern day practice of their "babies."

I mean, Bennett Cerf had absolutely no problem with "obscenity" so long as it was clearly understood that it was fiction. Of course, the line between fact and fiction in Joyce's Ulysses was a bit blurry. But here's one thing on which we can all agree: Joe McGinniss is a hack (and a pervert).

I mean, Bennett Cerf had absolutely no problem with "obscenity" so long as it was clearly understood that it was fiction. Of course, the line between fact and fiction in Joyce's Ulysses was a bit blurry. But here's one thing on which we can all agree: Joe McGinniss is a hack (and a pervert).

chickenlittle wrote:There's a movie out there about Cerf called Infamous (2006) which I now want to see.

Bennett Cerf appears as a character, and only briefly, in the 2006 film Infamous, but he's hardly an important character. The plot revolves around Truman Capote (Toby Jones) and his relationship with convicted murder Perry Smith, played by the remarkable Daniel Craig.

sorepaw wrote:The libel laws in Britain are much stricter than ours.

More clearly defined is a better description of British libel law.

The threat of meritless libel suits is widely used in Britain... by people with deep pockets to bully those without deep pockets into submission.

The deep pockets advantage is even more acute in the United States where everybody pays his own costs.

In recent years, Britain has become rather infamous for "forum shopping" libel suits.

Not nearly so infamous as forum shopping intellectual property suits in this country. Patent and copyright trolls are making billions and are helping to drive the industrious and innovative to more welcoming shores.

Overreaching by the left, by McGinniss and also by Andrew Sullivan, has reached the point that Palin is benefiting from it and it is hurting the left.

=================Not really. Between her own bad actions (quitting governor halfway through her term, etc), and the media bashing....a McLatchy/Marist poll had the public, 72-24 I believe, responding to the question do they want Sarah Palin to run with a big "NO!!"

After you replied I went back and re-read my comment, and decided it was way too harsh. The part you quoted is fine, and contains the important part of what I meant to get across, so let that stand, but I'm deleting my original...

Cedarford, Palin's leaving office early will probably hurt her. I was taking that into consideration.

Obviously the media attacks hurt her. My point is further attacks as what is practiced by McGinniss and Sullivan are probably helping her now. If you attack too relentlessly eventually there is a backlash to that. We have reached that point.

From a ruthless perspective, the only way McGinniss is hurt in this is if he's tarnished his own brand so much that no publisher will touch him from now on. For that to happen, two things have to come to pass:

1. Sales of this hatchet job tank.

2. Random House has to feel some pain.

For number (2) to occur, suing either party doesn't help; the suit itself will drive sales, and has been pointed out it would be hard for Palin (or anyone in her immediate family now, since they've become de facto public figures with all the media exposure they've received) to win such a suit.

A high-profile/successful boycott of Random House titles might work, though.

Do see Infamous, it is a worthwhile effort. Another film that plows some of the same ground is Capote, starring Phil Hoffman in the title role. I suppose in order to simply the Academy balloting Capote was released in 2005, though the two films were often playing at the same time in some markets. One would think the money people would be wary of such duplication of effort so close in time, but it seems to be more and more common these days.

Capote is also well worth your time. Though both deal with the Clutter murders and the aftermath, Capote spends more time developing the Clutter family as characters, and (no offense to the excellent Toby Jones) Phil Hoffman handles the Truman Capote role with a bit more aplomb and shading. You'll enjoy both, so rent 'em both (but not at the same Blockbuster, else the tattooed dropout manning the POS may think you're a bit gay)

wv: pollysis - the inflammation one gets from one too many phone calls from the Marist Institute

Heya¡­my very first comment on your site. ,I have been reading your blog for a while and thought I would completely pop in and drop a friendly note. . It is great stuff indeed. I also wanted to ask..is there a way to subscribe to your site via email?